The whole episode is an instructive example of how the Treason Lobby tries to use its MSM power to nullify the democratic process—immigration patriot Deal’s election and the subsequent passage of the anti-illegal House Bill 87—and how it now aims to stamp out absolutely all criticism, or even factual description, of its drive to elect a new American people.

Bookman quotes Kent’s writing in a Shock-Horror Point-And-Splutter style, but even he has to admit that

“Kent is a well-known figure in Georgia politics and has kept none of these sentiments secret. The columns cited above can be found at his website, www.philkent.com.” (Link in original)

So, if they’re not secret, how Shocking can Kent’s views be?

Bookman writes that Kent is

“…a national spokesman for American Immigration Control and executive director of the American Immigration Control Foundation. The AIC opposes not just illegal immigration but immigration generally. [VDARE.com emphasis. There! Shock! Horror]

“ ‘The name of the left’s game is to open the gates to massive Third World immigration and keep the immigrants as ignorant, impoverished and unassimilated as possible,’ the AIC warns in a recent anonymous column [Link in original] published on its website. ‘That way they will be a reliable electorate for ‘progressive’ politics, or perhaps reliable cannon fodder for armed revolution.’”

Bookman responds to this with a slick jeer:

“That’s right. It’s a leftist plot to smuggle in cannon fodder for an armed revolution.”

His point is, presumably, that the perpetrators of 9/11 were really native-born American members of the Ku Klux Klan. You didn’t know?

But to his more general point: Democratic leaders themselves boast that current immigration policy will create “a reliable electorate for ‘progressive’ politics” (for example, DNC chairthing Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz here). It’s obvious to anyone who can count.

Is Bookman saying we shouldn’t believe Democratic leaders?

Bookman is also Shocked and Horrified that Kent

“seems peculiarly concerned about preserving what he calls the ‘whiteness’ of America. In a column last year[link in original], he warned that 2010 could be the ‘tipping point’ for America, the year in which minority babies outnumber white babies.

“ ‘If this trend is not reversed–and it could be if an immigration moratorium were imposed– what Vassar College author Hua Hsu labels America’s white “centrifugal core” will slowly disappear,’ Kent wrote. ‘This leads to big questions: What will be the values and ideas of a multicultural America? What will it mean to be white after “whiteness” no longer defines the cultural mainstream?’”

Note that Bookman nowhere disputes the truth of what Kent said. Minority babies (counting anchor babies) did outnumber white babies in 2010. And it will obviously mean something “to be white after ‘whiteness’ no longer defines the cultural mainstream”. What else explains white flight from cities and, incipiently, states?

But Bookman is simply reflexively determined that these subjects must not be discussed at all.

Bookman, positively palpitating with Shock and Horror, further quotes Kent:

“Many whites ‘will flee into whiteness.’ They will move to where other fair-skinned brethren are to retain their identity—nostalgically yearning for an American authenticity where everyone speaks English. Politically, the country will become more balkanized, with white leaders forming and breaking alliances with their black and Hispanic counterparts. (An example: Gwinnett County—outside of Atlanta, Ga.—will turn into an Hispanic/Muslim enclave if present trends continue. Whites there are already moving to ‘friendlier’ areas.)”

Again, Bookman makes no effort to deny the fact that this is actually happening. Apparently he just feels that it must not be mentioned.

And he writes:

“Note the concept that ‘American authenticity’ exists only in areas where the ‘fair-skinned brethren are able to retain their identity.”

This, of course, is the key to Jay Bookman’s visceral reaction.

Well, I have news for him. The reason “fair skinned brethren” represent “American authenticity” is that, as Philip Roth said of WASPS in American Pastoral (p. 311), “let’s face it, they are America.”

Has Bookman ever looked at who the Founding Fathers actually were?

(Of course, there were black slaves in the U.S. too—but the brutal fact is that they did not constitute a part of the political nation. And their slow and painful assimilation to that political nation has been materially hindered by the mass immigration that Bookman enthusiastically supports).

Even according to the boringly politically correct Wikipedia, an extraordinary 57.4% of American whites born 1899-1905 had blue eyes. (It’s recently down to 22.3 %.)

That’s because what we at VDARE.com call “the historic American nation” had a specific ethnic core.

Of course, it has assimilated new waves of immigration, as all historic nations do. But the process has been slower and more problematic that immigration enthusiasts imagine—and it depended critically on pauses for digestion. Without legislation, no such pause is now in prospect.

Why is it that any discussion of America’s specific ethnic core—or of “whites” at all—sends Brickman, and so many others, into foaming fits?

I am afraid the answer comes back to the opening paragraph in my 1995 Immigration book Alien Nation[PDF]: